PDA

View Full Version : Congress Is Not Qualified!



Franco
01-28-2009, 01:39 PM
Bail Out According to Maxine
Hell, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country and our banking system to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling whiskey!"



Subject: stimulus payment info...



This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic
Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new
program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send
to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase
a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of
China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending
your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China .


If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.

If you purchase a computer it will go to India ..
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico , Honduras , and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan ..
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan .
And none of it will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America . You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales,

going to a baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer


and wine (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are
the only businesses still in the US

Lush Lumbago
01-29-2009, 05:46 PM
Makes no difference. They're elected and that is all the authority they need.

K G
01-29-2009, 05:58 PM
He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.........:rolle yes:

Franco
01-29-2009, 07:39 PM
He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.........:rolle yes:

Oh no, it's the brokeback Texan!

cotts135
01-30-2009, 06:25 AM
For all of you who think that it was such a great thing that no Republicans in the House voted for the Economic Stimulus plan I think we need to take a look at what might be the consequences of that vote.
The Republicans absolutely did the right thing when they opposed parts of the Stimulus plan that could be considered as pork and had no reason to be in there. We have all heard what those are so no need to revisit that. I hope in the future they continue to do the same. Ok. so now they have done that and Obama meets with them and discusses what their issues are and decides that he will add some of the Corporate tax cuts the Republicans want and cut some extraneous pork from the bill. After all that what do the Republicans do................... well with their infinite wisdom they decide to vote unamiously against the bill . They go on TV and boast how great they are and how they are saving us from ourselves because they voted against this bill.

Now it is time to get to reality. First and most important the Democrats do not need their votes. So now if I am a Democrat and I was willing to make all these concessions in order to get some bipartisan support and I see that not one Republican voted for the bill after the changes were made what am I to think. It's easy, they just say screw them we will put back the provisions in the original bill and then re vote. It will still pass regardless of what the Republicans do and when it goes to the Senate if the Republicans decide to hold it up I think they will be seen as obstructionists and will pay a steep political price which most are unwilling to do.

K G
01-30-2009, 07:34 AM
Now it is time to get to reality. First and most important the Democrats do not need their votes. So now if I am a Democrat and I was willing to make all these concessions in order to get some bipartisan support and I see that not one Republican voted for the bill after the changes were made what am I to think. It's easy, they just say screw them we will put back the provisions in the original bill and then re vote. It will still pass regardless of what the Republicans do and when it goes to the Senate if the Republicans decide to hold it up I think they will be seen as obstructionists and will pay a steep political price which most are unwilling to do.

Okay....I get it....it's not "screw them (the Republicans)," it's "screw the American people because of the Republicans...."

So that's the definition of "change"....."yes we can"....and by golly, they're going to.......:mad:

And it hasn't even been two weeks regards,:rolleyes:

kg

subroc
01-30-2009, 08:10 AM
...I think they will be seen as obstructionists and will pay a steep political price...

The Democrats have been obstructionist for the past 8 years and they just won a presidential election and a majority in both houses of congress. Seems like a great benefit of being an obstructionist.

Raymond Little
01-30-2009, 09:40 AM
If the bailout was such a slam dunk the MESSIAH would not need to involve the opposition party. The controlling party knows this bail out scheme is more about social engineering
and less about dragging us out of a depression. He (Messiah) has already confirmed that
the treasury takes in more in tax reciepts when taxes are cut but he is playing a get even
game. Think income equilization, and just announced; "middle income task force" going to
dole out as much pork as they can to create more "WHINERS". Our Prez is an empty suit
and the American people will hopefully realize his promises are leading us down a very dark
alley.

No Socialism Regards

cotts135
01-30-2009, 10:45 AM
The Democrats have been obstructionist for the past 8 years and they just won a presidential election and a majority in both houses of congress. Seems like a great benefit of being an obstructionist.

Obstructionists ??????????????? Wasn't aware of that, you have anything to support your claim?

subroc
01-30-2009, 07:30 PM
Obstructionists ??????????????? Wasn't aware of that, you have anything to support your claim?

Other than the headlines using quotes from the democrat rank and file in congress as well as their leadership that appeared in the newspapers, magazines and in interviews every day for the past 8 years, not much.

But, one easy example is social security reform. Issues that were considered good ideas by democats and even advocated by them when clinton was in power were no longer acceptable when President George W. Bush was advocating the exact same things.

Here is a link where clinton advocated retirement savings accounts in the same manner as President George W. Bush. If you don't like this link you can do your own internet search. The information is the same regardless of who does the internet search.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

YardleyLabs
01-30-2009, 07:52 PM
Other than the headlines using quotes from the democrat rank and file in congress as well as their leadership that appeared in the newspapers, magazines and in interviews every day for the past 8 years, not much.

But, one easy example is social security reform. Issues that were considered good ideas by democats and even advocated by them when clinton was in power were no longer acceptable when President George W. Bush was advocating the exact same things.

The center of GWB's plan was diversion of a portion of social security taxes into personal investment accounts with a reduction in benefits sufficient to offset unfunded obligations, obligations that were funded by SS taxes but spent by the government to cover deficits, and the losses associated with the diversion of revenues to private accounts. He never specified how those cuts would be made, leaving those details to Congress once the personal accounts were authorized.

Clinton never proposed anything even vaguely similar. Clinton's main proposal was to divert a portion of the surplus to reduce the SS deficit but that was given out by Bush in tax cuts instead. Of course, those tax cuts were funded largely through the diversion of even more funds from Social Security to benefit people earning incomes well above the levels taxed for Social Security.

subroc
01-30-2009, 08:20 PM
Both men advocated savings accounts. The point was democrats were obstructionist when dealling with Bush on the same issue. At no time did they engage in a meaningful way to attempt to pass social security reform even though they believed it needed to be done and they had a president that was interested in accomplishing it. The democrats put partisan politics and obstructionism ahead of country.

cotts135
01-31-2009, 06:06 AM
Other than the headlines using quotes from the democrat rank and file in congress as well as their leadership that appeared in the newspapers, magazines and in interviews every day for the past 8 years, not much.

But, one easy example is social security reform. Issues that were considered good ideas by democrats and even advocated by them when clinton was in power were no longer acceptable when President George W. Bush was advocating the exact same things.

Here is a link where clinton advocated retirement savings accounts in the same manner as President George W. Bush. If you don't like this link you can do your own internet search. The information is the same regardless of who does the internet search.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Here is some recent votes from the Senate that show why the Democrats are not obstructionists.

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:GOP - 48-0 Dems - 12-36
To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:GOP - 0-49Dems - 24-21
To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:GOP - 46-0 Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:GOP - 49-0 Dems - 8-38
Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:GOP - 46-2 Dems - 30-20
To condemn MoveOn.org:GOP - 49-0 Dems - 23-25
The Protect America Act:GOP - 44-0 Dems - 20-28
Declaring English to be the Government's official language:GOP - 48-1 Dems - 16-33
The Military Commissions Act:GOP - 53-0 Dems - 12-34
To renew the Patriot Act:GOP - 54-0 Dems - 34-10
Cloture Vote on Sam Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court:GOP - 54-0 Dems - 18-25
Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:GOP - 48-1 Dems - 29-22
Almost every vote were for proposals that the White house wanted and were strongly supported by the GOP. Looking closely at the votes you can't help but notice the unamious votes by the GOP. In eight of the votes they were then able to extract enough support from the Dems to insure they got what they wanted. That to me seems to be bipartisanship not obstructionism.
Let's not forget the threat of a Filibuster which the Republicans love when they are the minority party but not so much when they are the majority.

subroc
01-31-2009, 06:15 AM
I can play that game too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062000402_pf.html

Please get off the high horse.

YardleyLabs
01-31-2009, 06:31 AM
Obstructionist is a loaded term and depends entirely on perspective. If you agree with the majority on an issue, then those who disagree are obviously obstructionist. If you disagree, then those who share your opinion are obviously defending freedom from a delusional majority. Where you see obstruction, I see freedom fighters.

How do you classify the actions of the Republicans who voted unanimously against the stimulus package in the House after first winning concessions on a number of issues. I suspect you don't call them "obstructionists." For what it's worth, I don't either. The rules of the Senate, and to a lesser extent the House, provide a variety of tools to permit a minority to "obstruct" actions by the majority to force compromises on key issues. A side effect of these rules is that either side can bog down the process fairly easily creating the (accurate) impression of a do-nothing Congress.

When things get bad, the majority will often declare its intention to change the rules to make obstruction harder. The Republicans did this in the Senate when they threatened the "nuclear option" to force a vote on judicial nominations. The Republicans did a similar thing in the House by shutting down options to amend legislation on the floor. The Democrats in the House recently announced their intention to restrict the ability of the minority to return bills to committee to prevent a vote. This process, while painful for all, is not a meaningless dance. It is a dance that tries to recognize that a majority of 50% + 1 should not be able to tyrannize the rest of our population. However, by the same token, a minority cannot have unlimited ability to thwart the majority. The procedural dance tends to force both sides to pick their battles carefully or pay the price in the next election.

subroc
01-31-2009, 07:14 AM
I pretty much agree with your post.

My original post on the issue of obstructionism is that the democrats do it as well. Cotts135 appears to believe that democrats don’t obstruct, rose-colored glasses and all that. I even advocated obstructionism seeing that the democrats used it and won the presidency and both houses of congress using that exact strategy among other reasons.

cotts135
01-31-2009, 10:29 AM
After going back and re-reading the post's Subrock I can see how you came to those conclusions. My use of words were imprecise and my meaning was not clear. In two instances my implication was that Democrats were not obstructionist's. That is wrong. What I should have said is that both parties engage in this behavior.

Your quote that the Dems have been obstructionist's for eight years seemed to me to be just a broad generalization and I thought it needed context and clarity. That's what I was commenting on.
I know you probably find this hard to believe but I am all for the Republicans doing what they can to block this legislation. Call it whatever you like but they believe in what they are voting for and they stick together when they do it. Witness the votes I posted. The Dems on the other hand are not always so convinced about their convictions and hence you have split votes.

Neither party should vote for legislation they don't believe in. It seems that the Republicans are just better at it.

Bob Gutermuth
01-31-2009, 12:57 PM
Jefferson was right, "The Republic isn't safe when the legislature is in sessiion!"